Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To determine the impact of a graphical information display on diagnosing circulatory shock.Materials and methods
This was an experimental study comparing integrated and conventional information displays. Participants were intensivists or critical care fellows (experts) and first-year medical residents (novices).Results
The integrated display was associated with higher performance (87% vs 82%; P < .001), less time (2.9 vs 3.5 min; P = .008), and more accurate etiology (67% vs 54%; P = .048) compared to the conventional display. When stratified by experience, novice physicians using the integrated display had higher performance (86% vs 69%; P < .001), less time (2.9 vs 3.7 min; P = .03), and more accurate etiology (65% vs 42%; P = .02); expert physicians using the integrated display had nonsignificantly improved performance (87% vs 82%; P = .09), time (2.9 vs 3.3; P = .28), and etiology (69% vs 67%; P = .81).Discussion
The integrated display appeared to support efficient information processing, which resulted in more rapid and accurate circulatory shock diagnosis. Evidence more strongly supported a difference for novices, suggesting that graphical displays may help reduce expert-novice performance gaps.
SUBMITTER: Reese TJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7481028 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Reese Thomas J TJ Del Fiol Guilherme G Tonna Joseph E JE Kawamoto Kensaku K Segall Noa N Weir Charlene C Macpherson Brekk C BC Kukhareva Polina P Wright Melanie C MC
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20200801 8
<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the impact of a graphical information display on diagnosing circulatory shock.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This was an experimental study comparing integrated and conventional information displays. Participants were intensivists or critical care fellows (experts) and first-year medical residents (novices).<h4>Results</h4>The integrated display was associated with higher performance (87% vs 82%; P < .001), less time (2.9 vs 3.5 min; P = .008), and more accurate eti ...[more]